Melissa Savenko's Richmond Real Estate Review

How Do People See Richmond - And What Does Real Estate Got To Do With It?

In the Sunday Commentary section of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, there are three - THREE! - pieces alone that really struck me.

First, there is John Bryan's piece, "So, What Do You Think About Richmond?" Mr. Bryan is the President of CultureWorks, a non-profit umbrella organization that supports arts and entertainment groups in Richmond. He details his informal interviews with marketing professionals at a conference in Louisville, Kentucky. The question was "Tell Me Everything You Know About Richmond." Apparently, what the thirty three (33) folks interviewedknew was basically nothing. So, Mr. Bryan followed up with each of the interviewees and sent a "pitch" about the City. The remainder of the piece details exactly what he highlighted, things about Richmond, Virginia that make it special and unique.

The second piece is by Mike Hughes, President of the Martin Agency, and Ella Kelley. It suggests turning the Huguenot Bridge into a public park/pedestrian and bike byway, a la the New York City High Line. What a super-cool idea!

The third piece is Tom Silvestri's editorial titled "Four Buddies Discuss How to Play Ball." I'm not too sharp, so it took me well into the first read to figure out Chester was Chesterfield County, Hans was Hanover County, Henry was Henrico County and Rich was, you guessed it!, the City of Richmond. Duh me. But the piece cleverly lays out the various jurisdictions' attitudes towards funding a new ball park for the Diamond. If you have read my blog for any length of time you know I am pro-baseball on the Boulevard, and all for a new ballpark for the Squirrels.

More on all of these topics later, but if you haven't read them, do. Great things are happening in Richmond.

Squirrels Stadium Controversy - Is It About Baseball or Strategic Development?

Lordy be.  Here we go again.  There are articles, and editorials, and letters to the editor, about whether or not "Richmond," which really means the Richmond Metropolitan Authority ("RMA"), made up of Richmond, Henrico, and Chesterfield, should contribute the money to build a new stadium for the Squirrels AA team.  If they won't commit to building a stadium, there are rumblings that the Squirrels will go away.

Major public reaction seems to be: "Tough noogies. Who cares what the community promised to lure the Squirrels here. Times are tough. That money should be spent on ______ [insert your favorite cause here: education/roads/downtown development]." I should also note that it appears from a very unscientific review and poll that the vast majority of the letter writers and commenters are from the counties. Shocker.

Here's the Letter to the Editor du jour:

I may not be the target audience for the Richmond Squirrels.  I'm just a casual baseball fan who will go out to see the local team a couple of times a year.

This year, I went near the end of the season, when the club was trying to make it into the playoffs. The stands were not full.  I also went to the first home playoff game, and again the stands weren't full.  I fail to see how a new ballpark will increase attendance after the novelty wears off.

I had an enjoyable time at the game, and it didn't matter that the Diamond isn't state-of-the-art.  But I will object strongly to subsidizing a new building just for the sake of keeping this or any other team.

I think people are missing the point.  It's not about the Squirrels per se.  It's about committing to strategic development in a specific part of the City that has the greatest possible likelihood to leverage additional private investment in the City.  A successful City of Richmond is the rising tide that will raise all boats.  Even though Henrico and Chesterfield will never believe that.

And by the way, my recollection is the Shockoe Bottom Stadium proposal was about exactly that, driving private investment in the area and how the cumulative effects of a new baseball stadium would benefit the City. So people who wanted a Shockoe Bottom Stadium can't talk out of both sides of their mouths, and claim in their priposal a new stadium would be an economic driver, but a few years later and in a different location, a new stadium would be an economic suck.

I'm sure this debate is going to continue.  I think next I am going to lay out the reasons a stadium on the Boulevard is the right strategic investment.  And if you want more background on why I felt then the Boulevard was the right place, or more accurately that the Bottom was the wrong place, there are a bunch of old posts on the topic.  Go wild.

 

VCU Wants the City to Give It City Stadium as a "Gift" - Apparently They Are Experimenting with Hallucinogenic Drugs

Mayor Jones, don't you dare!  So VCU is interested in acquiring City Stadium and wants it as a GIFT?!?  VCU would like to be "the steward" of the property.  Hey Dwight?  I'LL be happy to be the steward of the d*mn property, if you're just going to give the thing away.  I guarantee the folks in the surrounding residential neighborhoods would like my development plan a heck of a lot more than what VCU has in mind.  Or anything else that has been proposed for the City Stadium site, for that matter.

There are so many things wrong with the entire concept I don't even know where to start.

1.  Why in the world would the City GIVE away an extremely valuable parcel of property?

2.  If the City gives City Stadium away or sells it, it loses control over the future development of that parcel.

3.  Ummm, it's not like the City of Richmond has so much extra cash lying around that a multimillion dollar property, with umpteen millions of dollars of development potential, is disposable.  Are these people smoking crack?

4. Not to mention if VCU owns the property, it will never be real estate tax producing for the City. 

5.  Just what we need, VCU expanding into yet another neighborhood, smashing and destroying to get whatever it wants.  Maybe Rao is different, but under the Trani regime it was a "give me what I want or I will crush you!" sort of approach.  If you doubt me, call up the folks from Oregon Hill, they might have some stories to share.

I'm literally sputtering.  This CANNOT happen.  Margaret Freund's idea of "Stony Point in the City" was and is God awful, but this is worse.  VCU is going to be the blob that eats the City.  My love-hate relationship with VCU has officially slipped into the at least "extreme dislike" category.

So, who is with me?    

Consultants Suggest a New Stadium - I Mean "Arena" - for Downtown Richmond - Volume II

Here is the second volume in the $150,000 consultant's report on what to do about the Richmond Coliseum.

And ooops!  Apparently it is an ARENA, not a STADIUM.  Whatever it is, we can't afford it.

And two posts in three days!  I am hurting my arm with the back-patting right now.

New City of Richmond Businesses - A Bike Shop and a Specialty Market

Richmond BizSense reports the opening of two new businesses in the City, both in the VCU area.  Balance Bicycle is opening at 312 Brook Road and Sprout Market and Cafe is opening at 1 N. Morris Street.  Sprout is a creation of the owners of the former All-Star Deli on Lombardy and will serve food with "locally sourced ingredients," per Bizsense.

[ASIDE:  I think this means there will be more VCU students riding their bikes in the Fan and surrounding areas. Now I know is good for the environment, but I just gently ask that all those City bikers OBEY THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS.  It's a big problem in the Fan, especially at the four-way stops.]

Sprout sounds quite like Ellwood Thompson, the natural food market located at the intersection of Cary and Thompson at the top of Carytown.  I bet Sprout works gangbusters, because there is nothing equivalent in the VCU area.  And there are LOTS of teens and 20-somethings that are big into the natural/local food trend.

In fact, I think both of these new businesses are examples of the strength of the larger green movement.  I also think the locations are evidence of the strong environmental consciousness of the Gen Y'ers.  This is a trend that is going to continue and only grow more significant, IMHO.  And that's a GOOD thing.  Remember, green is the new black.  [;)]

Why I Have Been AWOL - And Upcoming Topics - Including Why the GRTC Bus Barn Sale to RRHA Sucks Rotten Eggs

I suck.  I can't believe I haven't posted anything in ELEVEN days, which in the blogosphere might as well be eleven months.  Gotta stay relevant, and prolific.  My excuses:

• I moved, and my life is chaos;
• I have no Internet service;
• I ama Richmond native and therefore genetically incapable of driving in the barest snow flurries, much less this "snowpocalypse," as Mark Brady termed it; AND
• The dog ate my homework.

But seriously, I have been living under a rock.  I didn't even know about the bus barn sale until I read about it six d*mn days after it happened.  [Note to self:  Change RTD subscription to new address.  Or walk to corner market and by a paper, for Lord's sake!].

Soooo...I have a lotta topics that have built-up.  The MOST important of which is the GRTC Bus Barn sale to the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("RRHA").  I mean, how in the name of all that is holy does something of that significance get approved without public input, in the middle of December, when people are distracted with the holidays, and with only three (3) people voting?!?!  We gotta get to the bottom of this.

So, following is a list of topics I intend to address sooner, rather than later:

1. GRTC Bus Barn Sale to RRHA - How Did This Happen?
2. The Inaugural Group Meeting for "Richmond Matters" 
3. New Urbanism - Because Fake Traditionalism Just Didn't Sound Good
4. Shouldn't "Venture Richmond" Be Renamed "Venture Downtown/Shockoe Slip/Shockoe Bottom/Manchester"?
5. An Ode to Ukrop's - Oh, How I Will Miss You!
6. Why I Still Think the "Flying Squirrels" Is a Stupid Name
7. Alternatives to the Law Firm Billable Hour - Some Ideas

As always, I welcome suggestions or ideas for additional topics.  For now, signing off to address lack of home Internet.  Enjoy the holiday season, people!

Richmond's Minor League Ball Club Naming Contest - I Mean, SERIOUSLY?!? The Rock Hoppers?

OK, I meant to write something on this topic two days ago when the owners of the new Richmond-based Eastern League Class AA baseball team announced the five finalists for team name:

1. Flatheads (after river catfish, apparently);
2. Flying Squirrels;
3. Hambones;
4. Rhinos; and
5. Rock Hoppers

I mean....SERIOUSLY?!?  What in the world were they thinking?  I mean, the Hambones makes SOME sense, although any true Richmonder knows it should probably be the Ham HOCKS. And I guess Flatheads, once explained, also makes some sense - although who in the Sam Hill wants to have to explain that name 47 THOUSAND times ("No, no....it doesn't mean we have actual FLAT heads.  It's for this type of catfish, you see, that is native to the James River...oh, never mind.")?

But what in the world do Flying Squirrels have to do with Richmond?  Or Rhinos, for that matter?  Do we even HAVE flying squirrels in this neck of the woods?  I don't think there is even a rhino at Maymont or the Richmond Zoo - which, apropos of nothing, is in Chesterfield, by the way.

Well hush my mouth and slap my Mama!  A little insight into how these five finalist names were selected is front and center in today's Richmond Times-Dispatch.  Apparently, according to the chief executive manager of the franchise, Mr. Chuck Domino, they want "obtuse, fun, off-beat, you name it.  We're not your grandfather's front office, I can guarantee you that."  So, they sat around a table, starting with 20 possible team names, and went round and round and round until they came up with these five.  Suffice it to say, I suspect there were also copious amounts of alcohol involved. 

["Bob, I'm just not sure a rebel is really fun and kooky enough.  I mean, yeah, he could have a sword and a cape, kids like that stuff, and Richmond was where Patrick Henry did that "liberty and death" speech thing, but DUDE, a flying squirrel is just so much cooler!  Pass me another tequila shot, won't you?"]

Well, assuming my grandfather HAD a minor league baseball front office, which he did not, I guarantee he could still have been fun and off-beat while remaining RELEVANT.  Can't we have both, people?  I mean, the franchise owners also say:

We want to have something that's going to lend itself well to a logo, lend itself well to multiple mascots, be something that people are going to scratch their heads about.  And something that would lend itself well to merchandise that would last the test of time for kids' merchandise.  That's where the key is, selling kids' merchandise.

Well, I'm scratching my head about all of it.  For example, how in heck does a "Rock Hopper" lend itself to multiple mascots?  A big rock?  That hops?  Doesn't seem very fun to me.  And if I don't think it's fun, I seriously doubt a seven year old will.  Hambones seems a little more obvious.  We can have a pig mascot, pig noses and ham hats.  Kids will LOVE that.  No matter that we'll all look like loons.

So......I am going to throw out a few possible names, that just might be fun and loony enough, but still have something to do with Richmond...or at least Virginia...or heck, even the southern half of the eastern seaboard!  I am giving myself ten minutes and this is just going to be stream of consciousness.  Feel free to submit your own suggestions, or rag on mine.

• Republicans;
• Envy - We can have a big picture of Charlotte, NC with a red line through it;
• Reactionaries;
• Lockjaws;
• Antiques - the mascot can be an old lady in a rocker with a cane;
• Drawls - no clue what the mascot would be, but can't be any more difficult than a "Rock Hopper;"
• Diamondbacks - pushed by my 11 year old, who thinks it's cool because the team will be playing at the Diamond, at least for the short term;
• Debutantes - that amuses me for a whole host of reasons.  The team IS making its Richmond debut, now isn't it?  If Mr. Domino and associates REALLY have a sense of humor, they might go for it, regardless of the gender-bending issue.  The mascot could be a guy with a beard in a ball gown;
• Equivocators;
• Grits; and
• Status Quo.

OK, that was only 5 minutes, but I got bored.  So, some, maybe all, of my ideas may be goofy, but I bet I could do better with a roomful of friends and several bottles of wine.

Mr. Domino, you and your organization seem like fun folks.  I'm really glad you are coming to town and bringing a team with you.  I love going out to a live ball game on a beautiful evening and I'm looking forward to being able to do it again.  But not to put too fine a point on it, I think the current five finalist names suck.  I'm all for silly, goofy, and fun, but let's make it relevant to Richmond.  And if it's going to have "Ham" in it, I am strongly lobbying for Ham HOCKS, rather than Bones.  Or how about the "Fat Backs?"  That's even better.

Welcome to Richmond.  We're easy to love.  [;)]

Announcement on the Future of Richmond Baseball Tomorrow at 10 A.M.

What did we ever do without Facebook?  I just got a message from Charlie Diradour, the founder and energy behind the "Baseball on the Boulevard" Facebook group, and the leader of the main opposition to the Shockoe Center development.  There will be a press conference tomorrow at 10 A.M. at the Diamond, which Mr. Diradour says "will effect all of us here in Richmond and the surrounding counties."  He invites everyone to attend.

I'll be with clients tomorrow at 10 A.M., so I can't go.  But I bet a dime to a donut the announcement is going to be that (i) the Double-A Connecticut Eastern League franchise is moving to Richmond; and (ii) the Diamond is going to be renovated.  I'm just speculating, but maybe.  I do think having the Richmond Metropolitan Authority ("RMA") finance any renovation or expansion would be a good thing, both for the mythical and much-sought-after "regional cooperation," but also for purely practical reasons, because it spreads the financial risk among the localities, City and Counties.

But I'm just guessing about all this stuff.  Stay tuned.....

Baseball in the Bottom - Developers Kill the Proposal - Oh Yeah, and Walk Away from Boulevard Too

So, the end of the great "Baseball in the Bottom" debate has finally come.  See the Richmond Times-Dispatch breaking news report here.  Looks like Highwoods Properties decided to pick up all its toys and go home.  And when I say ALL the toys, I mean all the toys.  Highwoods has announced they are pulling out of any redevelopment proposal for the Boulevard corridor too. 

I have to say, the Boulevard proposal always seemed to me to be totally secondary to the Downtown baseball stadium proposal anyway, kinda a "here you Boulevard proponents, we'll do SOMETHING for you, just so you'll play nice."  Pity that, I think the Boulevard has HUGE potential as a retail corridor, being the connector between and so close to Northside and the Fan/Museum District/Carver/Jackson Ward.  Just look at how successful Movieland Cinemas has been in the short time it's been open.

But no matter.  The deal is dead.  I am not too upset about it.  If it worked on its own, without major investment from the City taxpayers, I wouldn't have been opposed.  But the simple fact is the numbers didn't work without major subsidies from the City - and ONLY the City.  The counties would have benefited, but didn't need to have any skin in the game.  In this economic environment, that type of burden placed on the City and its bond rating just ain't reasonable. 

Maybe we can now move on to discussing two things that I think are MUCH more interesting for revitalizing the Bottom - heritage tourism and high-speed rail.

And man, I gotta tell you - I was driving back from a meeting today and took the Manchester Bridge from the south side of the river to the north.  That view is SPECTACULAR.  I think it's the best view of the Richmond City skyline, period.  If we ever did do a new stadium, how cool would it be to be on the South side of the River, with the stadium facing north, looking out over the water?  That's a revitalization project I could get behind.  A woman can dream....

MORE Baseball: Shockoe Center Financial Feasibility Report Is Released

The preliminary report on the financial feasibility of the Shockoe Center development has been released.  Now people can read for themselves the experts' analysis of the financial projections.  Here's the front page newspaper article on the subject. 

The big "reveal":  The consultants say the project is "highly unlikely" without City of Richmond credit support for the bonds that must be issued to finance the project.  This is a sea-change from what the developers HAD been saying, which is that the project could be done without City money or City debt obligation.

I suspect the "against" crowd will jump on this financing change like a duck on a june bug.  I still haven't made up my mind where I come down on the project, period.  I still have significant concerns about the impact this development would have on the invaluable and irreplaceable historic resources in the area.  I agree with a recent commenter to one of my other posts that the conceptual architecture is bland and not worthy of a gateway area of our City.  I, for one, don't want some cr*ppy "new urbanism" development with cheap chain restaurants and lame retail.

The devil is ALWAYS in the details.  But I DO commend Mayor Jones for his measured response to the report.  Let's use it to really re-focus on what I think is the MAJOR issue, the issue that gets lost in the heated discussion about baseball, whether, if and where:

What is ultimately best for the entire City of Richmond and its citizens?  How do we make sure we do this right the first time?  There are no second chances with historic areas.  Let's make sure any decisions we, the community, advocate, are reasoned, rational, and based on accurate information.  Referendum, anyone?